Reviews

16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Classic (2003)
10/10
A wonderful, heart-warming film
15 May 2005
What can I say about The Classic, except that I never thought I'd like such a film. Cheesy romances featuring teenagers are really not my usual viewing, but The Classic was just beautiful.

I am not familiar with Korean cinema, and have never seen 'My Sassy Girl' so I cannot comment on how it measures as a follow-up. But as a movie standing on its own, it was a touching, tear-jerking and humorous 2 hour journey for me. The cinematography was outstanding, and paired with an equally impressive soundtrack it created beautiful scenes of the Korean countryside, as well as enhancing the generally poignant, nostalgic mood of the film. The acting was first class all around in my opinion, the movie could've so easily gone overboard with bad-acting considering the general plot of the movie, but never once did I find myself irritated by the lead female. The casting was perfect, and I was absolutely charmed by the characters of Jun-ho and the hilarious Tae-su. There were also a lot of comical elements in the movie which had me laughing off my sofa, making the characters endlessly endearing. The film takes us through a journey of many years in the past from when the characters' parents first meet, and had me bawling my eyes out at the end. The modern day story is just as good too. The film also finishes with what I consider two big surprises which had me thinking about the movie for ages afterwards.

All in all, I am really surprised that I liked this film. After considering why this was so since I really don't like romantic/comedy dramas, I came to the simple conclusion that this was just great filmaking, where the watcher gets utterly lost in the movie. It may not be very realistic, and however long we analyse it and it's clichés at the end all we know is that we were moved and entertained by this movie.
56 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't understand...
1 September 2002
...and I don't mean about the movie, I mean the hype. Now, I am not one to bash huge successful blockbusters just for the sake of going against the crowd. If it's good, it's good, no matter the cost, number of famous actors etc. And just for the record, I am not a Star Wars fan! Good points about the film are the acting, special effects, scenery, soundtrack, accuracy to the book (I take my sisters word for this, I have only read a bit of it myself). I was so prepared to love this movie. A first glance at the trailer and I thought, "maybe not. Nothing original". But after the awards, reviews etc, I thought I would see it and love it. Unfortunately not. Thank goodness I didn't go to the movies to watch it. I have never walked out of a film before, but I may well of if I watched LOTR at the movies. The plot. Maybe it was better on paper, but on screen, it just seems like the movie was trying to create some deadly serious matter that was created by a long (and I mean long) tale. Come on, "Get the ring to the Crack of Doom!" Was I supposed to take that seriously and feel for the characters? For anything? The movie seemed to be adding in too many problems and twists just to create an intelligent, complicated movie. Then the main thing I have a problem with. The ORIGINALITY. There is nothing in here that is original! Old wizards with white beards, nasty trolls, elves, fight the dark/evil/magical one!. Heard it all before? If LOTR was good for anything, originality would be off the list. Fine, say it was a good film of its genre, but NOT for everything. The whole film was ridiculous. Harry Potter was ridiculous too, but at least it didn't take itself seriously. Lord of the Rings seemed to be trying to hard too be magical/serious/intelligent. It wasn't.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Had me on the floor!
31 August 2002
This programme is too funny! Jamie turns into a few characters each week and plays pranks on the public. Yes, it has been done before, but trust me, this one is the funniest you'll see. My particular favourite is when he pretends to of had "Jaw Surgery" and has to wear a mouth brace - genius! Too bad it's only shown in the UK really late at night, Channel 4 should put it on a prime time slot so that all can watch it. I'd never heard of Jamie Kennedy before, but after checking his profile here, I realised that he's been a number of films that I've seen, e.g.the Scream movies, Romeo + Juliet, Bowfinger etc. Shows what a good actor he is!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Long, complicated, but worth it
10 June 2002
In my opinion, the film was better than the book. Perhaps, being only 15 years old, it was a bit too complex for me. The film itself, while being bum numbingly long, had a superb cast and cinematography (as I'm sure everyone's noticed) Although it seriously dragged at times, it all built up to a stunning ending, which is well worth the wait. The cast were brilliant and practically everyone did a good job. The only thing I found hard to believe was Willem Dafoe as Caravaggio. Apart from that, every one of these characters draw you into their world and, with the help of scenery etc, make you feel as if you were travelling with them. So, all in all a brilliant movie, apart from it's length. Oh, and what's with the soundtrack? They could've at least attempted something more dramatic!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Weird, Confusing...boring
26 May 2002
Velvet Goldmine sounds brilliant on paper, but in action it's an overlong, mashed pulp of glitter, bad hair and dodgy camera work. What the hell was it about? Maybe it's cause I'm young and don't appreciate the era or something, but the concert and music video scenes dragged on for far too long. The storyline jumped from one part to another, and then back again so you didn't know what was going on. This kind of arty filming works in some cases, but not in this one. Although I did like some of the music, it just got too much for me in the end. The acting, on the other hand, was very well done. Ewan McGregor gave a great performance (I almost believed he was a glam rock star), Jonathon Rhys Meyers was perfectly cast as the David Bowie lookalike, and Christian Bale gave an outstanding portrayal (as usual) of the lonely, confused Arthur Stuart. Apart from the acting, everything else was rubbish. I generally like movies, and I definately thought I'd like this considering Christian Bale was in it, but even he couldn't save it. You'd have to of lived in the seventies to like this movie, or have a serious passion for platform shoes, glitter and sparkly lycra.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not terrible
4 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Captain Corelli has received some really harsh reviews, but it really isn't that bad. It's obvious what the problem was, the book was just not transferable onto screen. It couldn't possibly of been crammed into 2 hours, but then any longer and some would've found it too bum numbing. Needless to say, the scenery and score were just perfect. So Nic Cage's accent was dodgy, but apart from that I thought he was perfect for the part. He was exactly as I imagined Corelli to be, quite dorky but kind. For some reason, I've always thought of him like this, even after watching Con Air and Face Off. I was especially impressed with Penelope Cruz. I've never seen her in a thing, and after appearing in all those gossip columns with Tom Cruise, I foolishly thought she was just another average actress with good looks. But she was suprisingly good. I think people mistook her for being wooden when she was just trying to play her role down (nothing worse than a war damsel over-acting, how cheesy). Despite other comments, I fail to see what was so good about John Hurt. Place any other old man in his role, Ian McKellen etc, and I'm sure there would be no big difference. It's not that hard to play a wise, expressionless, old man, especially if you're old and a man. Outstanding acting came from Christian Bale. He played his part with so much emotion, I was quite suprised after American Psycho, and it made me very sad when Pelagia left him for Corelli (though one can't really see why...Pelagia goes from being in love with Mandras to practically finding him annoying, she only manages a weak "sorry" and not even any tears!) I also thought the Mandras' mother was played really well. But here are the bad points. What the hell happened to the character of Carlo?! *SPOILER* I can understand why the movie left the homosexual bit out, but his close friendship with Corelli was practically non-existent. And it can't make sense to anyone who hadn't read the book why he'd suddenly step in front of Corelli when all the Italians were being shot and save him, when the two had barely exchanged words throughout the whole film.

Another major point...the chemistry between the two leads. I fail to see any whatsoever. In fact, I agree with another commenter, the only loving scenes were between Mandras and Pelagia at the beginning. This made the film lose some of its intensity. All in all, good novel adaption, quite a good film. 8/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Dark, witty and BRILLIANT!
3 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILERS*

I've been reading other comments on American Psycho, and it seems as if there are a lot of people disagreeing about stuff. Well, I think that's just what the director wanted - to create a film that people would remember, discuss, debate, whether or not they liked it, and that's what we've all been doing! I don't think it was made for people to "like", more to give insight and provoke. But anyways, I really liked it. There's something really funny about a well to do guy saying lines like, "I like to dissect girls, did you know I'm utterly insane?" right in front of peoples faces. Little do they know.... The plot is almost non-existent, and to be honest, I didn't really care about it. There's more to this movie than that, I just found it really interesting watching Patrick's life roll by and the wierd way he lives it. I guess you have to have a certain amount of intelligence and open-mindedness to get a film like this. I like to think that Bateman actaully did kill all those people...and the b**tard got away with it, just cause he did. Cause no one ever suspected him or whatever, it's a better ending than, "it was all in his head." The film is quite disturbing with the explicit sex scenes and violence (actually, although I am naturally squemish, I didn't think there wasn't as much gore as everyone made out to be), but it's sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Like the part where Bateman's with the two prostitutes and he's going into detail about PHIL COLLINS of all people, and at the same time instructing the women into positions. Or when we see just the utter madness of him when he gets totally manic over a fellow collegue having a better business card. There's something appealing about Bateman, even though he's a pretentious prick who is obsessed with vanity, sex and murder.

Special praise for Christian Bale, he is not only one fine looking actor, but his mannerisms and facial expressions give Bateman that supressed madness look. 10/10 for a wicked film. Check out the scene where he's about to axe Paul Allen, his prancing about to the music is hilarious.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sliding Doors (1998)
8/10
Watch it
8 January 2002
Sliding Doors is one of those films that has a very clever concept you don't come across very often - so watch it. It really is very good. I recorded it on TV the other day, and after watching it, wondered why I'd never rented it out before. The acting is definitely above average, Gwyneth Paltrow gives a great performance, making the audience feel sorry for her didn't-catch-the-train character, and then thinking, "go girl!" for her character that DID catch the train. Her English accent is also excellent - none of that over the top pronunciation . John Lynch also gave an outstanding performance, he particularly shines in his first few scenes when he is caught in bed with Lydia (Jeanne Tripplehorn), his stuttering and panic is very believable. John Hannah was loveable as James, always chasing after Helen, and Jeanne Tripplehorn was entertaining as 'the other woman'. London life is caught beautifully in this movie, the soundtrack is great and it has a very clever, satisfying end. A real feel good movie!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very Entertaining
8 December 2001
To be put simply Harry Potter is: Very Entertaining. It was at times slightly mundane, but I put that down to the fact that I had read the book only a day before, so I knew every scene that was coming.

Apart from that, the special effects were breathtaking, just amazing. The movie setting was spot on, people must understand that in order for Harry Potter to of done well in movie form, the SFX and sets were as equally as important as the actors and storyline. This may not of be the case for other movies, but it is crucial for Harry Potter, as the wizarding world MUST be brought to life through visuals too. As for the acting - well, you don't have to be the next Meryl Streep to play the parts of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Although having said that, Ron played by Rupert Grint was absolutely brilliant. He got the right expressions in just the right amounts without over-doing it (like his co-star Emma Watson who played Hermione). Daniel Radcliffe as Harry...I would say it was a good choice. In the books, unlike the other characters, Harry's personality is the most hard to depict, even though he's the central focus. He does not have as strong traits of personality as the other characters. Therefore, although people might describe Daniel Radcliffe as "wooden", he's only playing up to his character. Overall, pleasurable viewing. Any who say otherwise, either do not like this genre or have been swept up by the hype and have too high expectations. The soundtrack is also very good.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Billy Elliot (2000)
9/10
One word sums it up: Brilliant
9 August 2001
I was a bit late seeing Billy Elliot. It has been out for quite some time now, and I'd seen the trailers and read the synopsis and to be honest, despite all the rave reviews, it seemed like one of the dullest movies of the year. But when I finally watched it, I was left silent. I'm sure everyone knows the story by now. The performances from the cast were brilliant. No doubt about it, Jamie Bell as Billy the hopeful ballerina made an outstanding performance. Bell's facial and body expressions completely reflected how he felt. When he was angry, frustrated he let it all out in his sometimes manic dancing! Julie Walters gives a good portrayal of Billy's dancing teacher, and Gary Lewis creates a realistic relationship with Billy as his father. Jamie Draven as Tony, Billy's bad-tempered, 'hard man' brother gives an excellent performance that was totally underrated. Rarely was his name mentioned in reviews of Billy Elliot, even though he gave the film the realistic attitudes that a working class Northern English family would have. Now that I've watched Billy Elliot, I understand what all the fuss was about and promise never to judge a film until I have seen it for myself! Billy Elliot is now a firm favourite of mine. 10/10!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Messiah (2001)
10/10
Ground breaking drama
28 May 2001
Warning: Spoilers
When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As If (2001–2004)
Great London Programme
12 April 2001
'As If' is about the lives (mostly love lives) of six 18-19 year olds living in London. Shot in a quirky but fun way, the programme shows the ups and downs of relationships between the "friends". Although a bit of an exaggeration on the London scenery (bright colours, lovely weather) it's altogether a great programme and the music is funky. It's the teen programme UK television has been waiting for.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliantly complicated
23 December 2000
LA Confidential is now up there as one of my favorite crime movies. The plot is fantastically complicated, and yet absorbs the watcher right into the movie. It's full of thrills and dead ends, but you won't be disappointed with the result. Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce give fantastic performances, and Kevin Spacey plays his part well. Generally a good movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now and Then (1995)
10/10
Brilliant
22 October 2000
This film was just brilliant. I couldn't believe it when I saw a 6 out of 10 score for this film. Okay, so it's not really much like real life, it's a bit too idealistic, but it was way better then Stand By Me. I've tried watching that film more than 3 times, and I've never watched it all the way through. Somehow, a bunch of young adolescent boys swearing too much doesn't appeal much to me, even though I'm the same age myself. Now and Then made me think a lot about how important friendship is. It's a beautiful movie, and the soundtrack is wicked. A must see movie. There are too many action movies out there today. More movies like this should be made.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
OH MY GOD
22 October 2000
I am still shocked from last nights nightmare. Do you even call it a film? I had no idea what I was watching. Me and my friend stayed up until very late in the night and early morning watching this film. We couldn't stop laughing. The movie was ridiculous! Remember the chinese man that got his head chopped off...and was still doing a maniac laugh? What was that?! And how the movie is set one minute in ancient Tibet, then in modern Japan, then in Scotland, then in 18th century France and finally in the USA? Okay, so the scenery shots of Scotlands mountains were nice and it really did set the scene. But there were alot of "props" in the movie that didn't fit in. For example, where on EARTH did the trampoline come from for one of the actors to jump on it and fly to the ceiling or something, where did the fire come from when the man and woman are kissing in the mountians in the middle of nowhere and there were a load of others that I won't mention. It was one of the craziest movie I've ever seen. It was a complete criminal waste of movie money. I've never seen the first 2 Highlanders, and I don't think I want to.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good film
24 July 2000
The movie was really quite good. I haven't watched the first one before, so I didn't know if that one was better or not. Treat Williams wasn't as good as the other actors, he didn't have any expressions on his face! But credit has to be given to Susan May Pratt and the utterly gorgeous Edoardo Ballerini. I have to admit though that the fight sequences were really quite bad.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed